Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 59–65 | Cite as

Effects of hydroelectric turbine noise on the behaviour of Leporinus taeniatus (Characiformes: Anostomidae) in captivity

  • Marina H. L. DuarteEmail author
  • Rafael M. C. Melo
  • Marina D. A. Scarpelli
  • Thiago M. A. Carvalho
  • Linilson R. Padovese
  • Nilo Bazzoli
  • Elizete Rizzo
Article

Abstract

Hydroelectric power plants (HPP) constitute one of the main forms of energy generation in the world, and its operation produces underwater noise through generators and turbines, which can potentially impact the aquatic fauna. Anthropogenic noise is a stressful factor and can affect behaviour, physiology and acoustic communication of many animal species. However, the noise impact produced by HPP on fishes has not been studied yet. In this research we investigated the noise impact of hydroelectric turbines on the behaviour of Leporinus taeniatus held captive in Brazil. We tested the hypothesis that noise could disturb fishes’ behaviour by affecting school organization, fish position in the tank and the speed of swimming. Two groups of 10 individuals were exposed to 30 sessions of noise played at an intensity of 100 dB re 1 µPa, during 40 s on days 0, 7 and 14. Behavioural data were obtained before, during, and after noise exposure. Results showed that the fish swam significantly faster, moving to the bottom and swimming in depolarised shoals during noise exposure in both groups. Temporal analysis showed that during noise exposure fish swam faster, were less stationary and used the bottom of the tanks more throughout sampling period. These data provide evidence that fish behaviour can be affected by the aversive stimulus of the noise of a hydroelectric turbine in operation. It also suggests that sound pollution issues should be taken into consideration when regulating the use of natural areas for HPP.

Keywords

Fish behaviour Hydroelectric impact Anthropogenic noise Characins Brazil São Francisco River basin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the staff of the São Francisco River Basin Aquarium of the Zoobotanical Foundation of Belo Horizonte for allowing us to develop this research. We also thank CNPq, FAPEMIG and CAPES (post-doctoral grant) for financial support.

Funding

This study was funded by FAPEMIG (Grant number BPD-00567-14) and CAPES (Grant number PNPD 20131384).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals and informed consent

This project was approved by the Ethical Committee from Fundação Zoo-Botânica de Belo Horizonte, Brazil (Process number: P120).

References

  1. Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Santos NCL, Ortega NCL, Pelicice FM (2016) Fish assemblages in Neotropical reservoirs: colonization patterns, impact and management. Fish Res 173:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert JS, Petry P, Reis RE (2011) Major biogeographic and phylogenetic patterns. In: Albert JS, Reis RE (eds) Historical biogeography of Neotropical freshwater fishes. University of California, Berkeley, Los Angeles, pp 21–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson PA, Berzins IK, Fogarty F, Hamlin HJ, Guillette LJ Jr (2011) Sound, stress, and seahorses: the consequences of a noisy environment to animal health. Aquaculture 311:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbosa JM, Soares EC (2009) Perfil da ictiofauna da bacia do São Francisco: estudo preliminar. Rev Bras Eng Pesca 4:155–172Google Scholar
  5. Cachat J, Stewart A, Grossman L, Gaikwad S, Kadri F, Chung KM, Wu N, Wong K, Roy S, Suciu C, Goodspeed J, Elegante M, Bartels B, Elkhayat S, Tien D, Tan J, Denmark A, Gilder T, Kyzar E, DiLeo J, Frank K, Chang K, Utterback E, Hart P, Kalueff AV (2010) Measuring behavioral and endocrine responses to novelty stress in adult zebrafish. Nat Protoc 5:1786–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan AAYH, Giraldo-Perez P, Smith S, Blumstein DT (2010) Anthropogenic noise affects risk assessment and attention: the distracted prey hypothesis. Biol Lett 6:458–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Boer SF, Van der Gugten J, Slangen JL (1989) Plasma catecholamine and corticosterone responses to predictable and unpredictable noise stress in rats. Physiol Behav 45:789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Domjan M (2010) The principles of learning and behaviour. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  9. Dooling RJ, Leek MR, Popper AN (2015) Effects of noise on fishes: what we can learn from humans and birds. Integr Zool 10:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duarte MHL, Vecci MA, Hirsch A, Young RJ (2011) Noisy human neighbours affect where urban monkeys live. Biol Letters 7:840–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duarte MHL, Sousa-Lima RS, Young RJ, Farina A, Vasconcelos M, Rodrigues M, Pieretti N (2015) The impact of noise from open-cast mining on Atlantic forest biophony. Biol Conserv 191:623–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugan PJ, Barlow C, Agostinho AA, Baran E, Cada GF, Chen D, Cowx IG, Ferguson JW, Jutagate T, Mallen-Cooper M, Marmulla G, Nestler J, Petrere M, Welcomme RL, Winemiller KO (2010) Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio 39:344–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fewtrell JL, McCauley RD (2012) Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Mar Pollut Bull 64:984–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Godinho HP, Godinho AL (2003) Águas, peixes e pescadores do São Francisco das Minas Gerais. PUC Minas, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  15. Handegard NO, Michalsen K, Tjøstheim D (2003) Avoidance behaviour in cod (Gadus morhua) to a bottom-trawling vessel. Aquat Living Resour 16:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins AD, Popper AN (2017) A sound approach to assessing the impact of underwater noise on marine fishes and invertebrates. J Mar Sci 74:635–651Google Scholar
  17. Herbert-Read JE, Kremer L, Bruintjes R, Radford AN, Ioannou CC (2017) Anthropogenic noise pollution from pile-driving disrupts the structure and dynamics of fish shoals. Proc R Soc B 284:1627Google Scholar
  18. Kight CR, Swaddle JP (2011) How and why environmental noise impacts animals: an integrative, mechanistic review. Ecol Lett 14:1052–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latrubesse EM, Arima EY, Dunne T, Park E, Baker VR, d’Horta FM, Wight C, Wittmann F, Zuanon J, Baker PA, Ribas CC, Norgaard RB, Filizola N, Ansar A, Flyvbjerg B, Stevaux JC (2017) Damming the rivers of the Amazon basin. Nature 546:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehner PN (1998) Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Maximino C, Brito TM, Silva Batista AW, Herculano AM, Morato S, Gouveia A Jr (2010) Measuring anxiety in zebrafish: a critical review. Behav Brain Res 214:157–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mazarini JAF (2013) Desenvolvimento de uma metodologia para elaboração de modelos de predição dos níveis de ruído do campo acústico de usinas hidrelétricas. Master Dissertation, UNESP, Ilha Solteira p 113Google Scholar
  23. McCauley RD, Fewtrell J, Popper AN (2003) High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J Acoust Soc Am 113:638–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller N, Gerlai R (2012) From schooling to shoaling: patterns of collective motion in zebrafish (Danio rerio). PLoS One 7:e48865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muir JL, Pfister HP (1986) Corticosterone and prolactin responses to predictable and unpredictable novelty stress in rats. Physiol Behav 37:285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neo YY, Seitz J, Kastelein RA, Winter HV, ten Cate C, Slabbekoorn H (2014) Temporal structure of sound affects behavioural recovery from noise impact in European seabass. Biol Conserv 178:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nichols TA, Anderson TW, Širović A (2015) Intermittent noise induces physiological stress in a coastal marine fish. PLoS One 10:e0139157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parmentier E, Diogo R, Fine ML (2017) Multiple exaptations leading to fish sound production. Fish Fish 18:958–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearson WH, Skalski JR, Malme CI (1992) Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behaviour of captive rockfish (Sebates spp.). Can J Aquat Sci 49:1343–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Popper AN, Hastings MC (2009) The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol 75:455–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Purser J, Radford AN (2011) Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS One 6:e17478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reis E, Kullander SO, Ferraris CJ Jr (2003) Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. EDIPUCRS, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  33. Sarà G, Dean J, D’Amato D, Buscaino G, Oliveri A, Genovese S, Ferro S, Buffa G, Martire M, Mazzola S (2007) Effect of boat noise on the behaviour of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 331:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, Van Opzeeland I, Coers A, Cate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slotte A, Hansen K, Dalen J, Ona E (2004) Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fish Res 67:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomé RG, Bazzoli N, Rizzo E, Santos GB, Ratton TF (2005) Reproductive biology of Leporinus taeniatus Lütken (Pisces, Anostomidae) in Juramento Reservoir, São Francisco River basin, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev Bras Zool 22:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vasconcelos RO, Amorim CP, Ladich F (2007) Effects of ship noise on the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. J Exp Biol 210:2104–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wysocki LE, Dittami JP, Ladich F (2006) Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biol Conserv 128:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina H. L. Duarte
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rafael M. C. Melo
    • 3
  • Marina D. A. Scarpelli
    • 4
  • Thiago M. A. Carvalho
    • 5
  • Linilson R. Padovese
    • 6
  • Nilo Bazzoli
    • 2
  • Elizete Rizzo
    • 3
  1. 1.Bioacoustics Laboratory, Museum of Natural SciencesPontifical Catholic University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Postgraduate Program in Vertebrate ZoologyPontifical Catholic University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Morphology, Institute of Biological SciencesFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  4. 4.Environmental Analysis and Modelling ProgrammeFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  5. 5.Aquarium of the São Francisco River Basin, Zoobotanical Foundation of Belo HorizonteBelo HorizonteBrazil
  6. 6.Laboratory of Dynamics and Instrumentation of the Polytechnic SchoolUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations